UrGod wrote:But a human society that placed the value of a cow as equal to...the value of a human would be irrational...

Why?

Because a human society must put human value on top of the value hierarchy. That is what it means to be rational as a human society. It would make no sense for a society of beings to elevate as highest something else other than themselves and their own good -- such a society would simply degrade for lack of self-valuing consistency.

This is the historical struggle of human societies: they are attempting to learn how to posit humanity itself, its goods and its needs and its values, as the highest value. "Society" doesn't mean anything except this.

We eat, as all life eats. You are free to choose to eat meat or not, that is up to you, since we are omnivores. Or you can subsist entirely on Soylent if you prefer. But meat is very good for us, it nourishes us deeply. Both in body and in mind. Countering this for the sake of some weird morality of "eating life is bad!" makes no sense, because you are required to eat life in order to... live. Even plants have existence, life, self-value. It comes down to how you are able to value some other lifeform: in what ways does it present itself to you to be valued by you? I have asked here in this topic in what greater ways does a cow present itself to us to be valued other than as our meal? So far I have not received any answers to what question, which is not surprising since I do not think there are any answers to be found. As I said, if you value a specific cow as a pet for some specific reason, then you will not want to eat it, and that's just fine. But the cow on my plate was not my pet, was not my friend and did not present itself to be valued by me in any way other than to nourish me with its meat. That sounds harsh, sure, but that is how it works.

All life dies, and is ultimately eaten.. by other life. It is not a question of some silly moralizing of "it is bad that life must die!". Only cowards and religious moralists would feel that way. Anyone who feels this strong aversion to eating meat is a coward and/or a religious moralist. And cowardice and religious morality are stupid (un-philosophical). But most people cannot handle working with multiple levels of value and ranking them into a hierarchy, they can only make determinations in black and white, namely if one value is upheld then others must be rejected; this is the only way they are able to assert a single value, because they cannot deal with the contradictions between differing values-systems. And then they must find and follow a mere morality to stabilize this weakness of theirs into something livable, as a mode of life over time.

I fully acknowledge my respect for animal life, including for cows. Animals are alive, they self-value, they are sentient, they have thoughts and feelings. They do not want to suffer and die. These are all true statements. But what is forgotten is that there are no universal values, every value flows from a self-valuing, from a being itself who posits values to and for itself, in terms of itself. Religious moralists believe in universal values, therefore they are black and white thinkers who must state as Kant tried to do that if a value is good then it must be absolute-universal, and from this follows how they must reject any value that is at odds with whatever they think of as the universal value. In most cases the supposed universal value is "life is good" or "suffering/death is bad"; this is the position from which vegetarians and vegans come, although it is funny how they do not count plant life as being alive or as being able to suffer.

What do you think happens to a cell when it is damaged? It reacts. It tries to repair itself if possible, and if not possible then its components are violently torn apart and reconstituted by other cells -- the cell dies. Every cell, including plant cells, acts to remain alive and structurally stable. Why do you think cells have cell walls that are configured to only allow certain molecules in while rejecting others? Why do you think cells pump out their waste products? Oxygen is a waste product of plant cells. CO2 is a waste product of animal cells.

All values exist only because a specific being produces them, values them. No value exists in a vacuum without the valuer. So the only question is: what is your value, and why? If you feel emotionally damaged and fragile enough to be so bothered by the concept of eating meat, then your value will be as a vegetarian or vegan. That's perfectly fine, as your valuing. But such a valuing is by no means universal. It is not my own valuing, nor that of countless other humans not even to speak of all the carnivorous animals in nature who live only because they eat meat.

Thank you for this response. I asked "why" not to challenge you, but because I genuinely wanted to know your reasoning on the matter.

Personally, I am not a vegetarian, but I do value all forms of life. I value life, be it human or cow or insect or plant, because it is finite and full of possibility. I think that valuing the life of something you're going to eat is perfectly reasonable, and leads to an appreciation of what you're being given when you take that life.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch

UrGod wrote:Let's say there is a certain cow that I happen to care about for some reason, maybe it was given to me by someone I care about as a gift, or I raised it as a baby cow and have some sentimental attachment to it, like it were my pet. In that case it would be rational for me to refrain from eating it. I might choose not to eat it because I value it in other, greater ways than simply as my meal. But a cow that I have no attachment to I am only able to value as my meal. Unless someone is able to point out a way that cows present themselves to us as able to be valued more highly than this.

A steak on my plate is a pretty high value.

You might consider the quality of life that that cow whose meat you are about to partake in may have had at some point in time. Think of it as having grazed in green pastures and sometimes looking up at a beautiful blue sky. I have no idea what wonderful sense cows may experience in moments like this. But make her come alive to you. See the similarities lol between your life and her past life~~ that sense of enjoyment and qualia of being which both of you experienced.

Then she may become more to you than a piece of meat and you can be even more grateful and respectful for what you are about to partake in...namely ~~ her destiny and purpose being fulfilled through you.

SAPERE AUDE!

If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.

What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

UrGod wrote:We eat meat because that is how we value these animals that we eat. How else am I supposed to value a cow, other than as my meal?

You could keep one as a pet, which you argue later gives them a higher value.

A cow is a sentient living being, and I respect that, but that respect does not immediately translate into valuing.

Not for you and not for some Chinese when evaluating dogs.

And a cow does not exactly present itself as a repository of potential values to me, other than as my meal.

Most people do not present much value to me, but I don't eat them and would refuse to. Am I confused?

It would be impossible to expand the spheres of our valuing to include the whole world, this is why we care more about people we know than people we do not know, and this is perfectly rational to do. It is simply a limit in how we are made, how valuing works. And consciousness is based on valuing. We actually are able to care about what/who we actually.... care about. It's basic stuff, but many people do not even understand this.

Analytic, positivistic, and utilitarian "philosophies" are braincancers that do not even understand these most basic facts. They would pretend that it is "moral" to value everything equally, or at least value everything highly regardless of whether or not that thing actually is valuable to us in that way.

AGain most people are not valuable to you. Would you have only practical objects to nuking Madagascar?

Values are ordered into hierarchies. It is irrational to ignore a higher-order value for a lesser-order value. If cows were able to be valued by us on a higher level than as our meal, then we would value them like that. But they aren't. So the fact that the cow is alive and doesn't want to die and doesn't want to suffer isn't much relevant to us, even though we know those are highly relevant to the cow.

We do not eat our pets because our pets are able to be valued by us on much higher, more derivative levels than simply as our meal. Pets give us more,

Me personally, I would get more out of a pet cow, if I had land, than a pet cat. The cows eat grass, are really quite friendly, are less selfish than cats, do not kill songbirds, do not cause allergies, do not carry parasites that cause a lot of neurological issues, often in people who never diagnose this and are more loyal. That's me of course, but you are projecting what you value onto the pets you consider pets, following the culture you likely grew up in.

Given what you have said above you have facets of utilitarianism, because you universalize your values to include all individuals of categories.

UrGod wrote:We eat meat because that is how we value these animals that we eat. How else am I supposed to value a cow, other than as my meal?

You could keep one as a pet, which you argue later gives them a higher value.

A cow is a sentient living being, and I respect that, but that respect does not immediately translate into valuing.

Not for you and not for some Chinese when evaluating dogs.

And a cow does not exactly present itself as a repository of potential values to me, other than as my meal.

Most people do not present much value to me, but I don't eat them and would refuse to. Am I confused?

It would be impossible to expand the spheres of our valuing to include the whole world, this is why we care more about people we know than people we do not know, and this is perfectly rational to do. It is simply a limit in how we are made, how valuing works. And consciousness is based on valuing. We actually are able to care about what/who we actually.... care about. It's basic stuff, but many people do not even understand this.

Analytic, positivistic, and utilitarian "philosophies" are braincancers that do not even understand these most basic facts. They would pretend that it is "moral" to value everything equally, or at least value everything highly regardless of whether or not that thing actually is valuable to us in that way.

AGain most people are not valuable to you. Would you have only practical objects to nuking Madagascar?

Values are ordered into hierarchies. It is irrational to ignore a higher-order value for a lesser-order value. If cows were able to be valued by us on a higher level than as our meal, then we would value them like that. But they aren't. So the fact that the cow is alive and doesn't want to die and doesn't want to suffer isn't much relevant to us, even though we know those are highly relevant to the cow.

We do not eat our pets because our pets are able to be valued by us on much higher, more derivative levels than simply as our meal. Pets give us more,

Me personally, I would get more out of a pet cow, if I had land, than a pet cat. The cows eat grass, are really quite friendly, are less selfish than cats, do not kill songbirds, do not cause allergies, do not carry parasites that cause a lot of neurological issues, often in people who never diagnose this and are more loyal. That's me of course, but you are projecting what you value onto the pets you consider pets, following the culture you likely grew up in.

Given what you have said above you have facets of utilitarianism, because you universalize your values to include all individuals of categories.

I think you are slipping around the general point, that a cow does have value to the OP, be it as meat.It does not follow from estimating a cow as valuable food, that a human who has no personal value, is also valuable as food.

Your preferences for cows over cats are generally due to what a cow does not do, and is not. People who actually have pets prefer the pet because of what it is, and does do. I thus think that you don't actually mean what you say, wheres the OP clearly does.

If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.

What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Fixed Cross wrote:I think you are slipping around the general point, that a cow does have value to the OP, be it as meat.It does not follow from estimating a cow as valuable food, that a human who has no personal value, is also valuable as food.

He distinguished the usual pets from cows as if they represented inherent values, they don't.

Your preferences for cows over cats are generally due to what a cow does not do, and is not.

It may have seemed that way, but no, I prefer cows because they are less solipsistic, less manipulative. Cats are users.

People who actually have pets prefer the pet because of what it is, and does do.

Sure. Though they could easily have cows as pets and surely some do.

I thus think that you don't actually mean what you say, wheres the OP clearly does.

I meant what I said and I think the OP needed, at the very least, some clarification.

I think the key question his valuing approach is the one I asked about Madagascar. I think it is easy to pretend one is not utilitarian nor a deontologist in abstract discussions of animals - for some anyway - but once you get down to issues like the one I brought up, I doubt he means what he says, though he likely very well does in relation to cows. I don't think he has really thought it through. Or better put, felt it through.

eating meat is good, more nutritious than fruits and vegetables.However I've decided to take a bit of a break from it, especially red meat.I ate a lot of meat the last several years, and I think it's kind of wearing my digestion down.Still giong to eat some every other night, but smaller portions.

Fruit and vegetables are actually more nutritious and need to be eaten everyday ~ a few servings of each every day.Meat, to you, is more delicious. We do need it in our diets but only a few times a week.A big bowl of fruit and/or vegetables have a lot less calories and no fat as opposed to a small piece of steak. Size is deceiving.

SAPERE AUDE!

If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.

What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Pandora wrote:I’m not against eating meat, but our anatomy suggests that our ideal diet is primarily plant-based. In any case I don’t expect us to grow out longer and sharper fangs and claws any time soon.

This looks like propaganda to me, here's what chimp, our closest living relatives, mouths looks like:

They have large fangs, and molars, suggesting they're omnivores like bears.

From google:

Although the chimpanzees mostly eat fruit, they also regularly hunt for meat. Their main prey are red colobus monkeys. Between 1995 and 2014, Watts and Mitani observed 556 hunts, 356 of which targeted red colobus. These hunts were very successful: 912 colobus were killed, an average of 3 per hunt.

While humans have small fangs, we do have them.Did our fangs become small because we started eating more fruits, vegetables and nuts than meat, or did they become small for other reasons, like our jaws becoming smaller and flatter, because we started using weapons to help us hunt, utensils to tear up carcasses, and fire to cook, and help tenderize carcasses?I think the latter is the case, our jaws are smaller and flatter, and when you study our ancestors, tens of thousands of years ago, they had spears, knives, fire and they hunted, and so do primitive peoples today.There isn't a tribe on earth that doesn't at least occasionally consume meat, in fact they'd die if they didn't, because omnivores like us can't get every nutrient we need from plants, and tribes frequently eat it whenever they have access to it.

Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie

People who type things like this are spending too much time on the internet. Go outside man. Find a nice girl of another race and bang her.

Of another race? Where did you get that from?

"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie